Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Science in Creationism
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 931 of 986 (784781)
05-23-2016 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 925 by Dawn Bertot
05-23-2016 12:42 AM


Never said words didn't have meanings, I said reality gives words thier meaning. Secondly I said when the definitions ascribed by man given to words, try to contradict or ignore simple observable truths, then those meanings need to be discarded
Since I don't know what you mean by 'The science in creationism' I can't comment.
I know your definition is not correct, because you CANNOT show the chain of causality from the brain to consciousness.
I've never claimed to have a scientific theory of consciousness.
Right, but if the word doesn't conform to reality or ignores reality, then it is the meaning ascribe to the word that is wrong, not reality.
Cheese is a word, but we know the moon is not made of cheese.
But we can only meaningfully disagree or agree with one another if we mean the same thing when we talk of 'moon' and 'cheese'. Right?
Social matters are a creation of the mind, with no relation to the natural world.
Are you denying humans exist?
Are you denying humans interact with one another?
There you go again, asking me to give you direct evidence for my conclusion, assuming your direct evidence of just your process is the same type of evidence, to demonstrate mu conclusion, it's not
But none of your observations have supported that life is Intelligently Designed, the existence of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer, you have not provided any causal link from the Creator to the Created, so you've done nothing but look at something. I don't see why it's of any interest. All you have supported is design and some kind of thing that explains the design, this is nothing to do with what most people would call 'Creationism'.
But that's the point Modulous, you are erring on the side of common usage, EVEN IF, the the common does not conform to reality. You saying let's stick with the meaning of the word, no matter what?
I'm just asking what you mean by using the word. I've told you what I mean. I've told you what was meant in the thread that came before this. Now tell me what *you* mean.
Really, this shouldn't be difficult to do. You do *know* what you mean, right?
Do any of these symbols in logic, or all of them demonstrate in reality, that design is not design, or that I can not easily observe design.
No, they suggest that design is design and that you can observe it.
The letter 'd' replaces your English word 'design' because, as you said
quote:
When words, phrases, ideas "arguments" or whatever conflict with reality, we have to abandon those
SO I've abandoned the word 'design' and replaced it with the letter 'd'. You are talking observing 'd' and inferring a 'der'.
Roman's 1:20
But just to be clear, you HAVE NOT raised any God in support of your position - right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 925 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-23-2016 12:42 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 932 by jar, posted 05-23-2016 8:39 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 944 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-24-2016 12:22 AM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 932 of 986 (784782)
05-23-2016 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 931 by Modulous
05-23-2016 7:11 AM


more evidence that Dawn is also ignorant of the Bible.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Roman's 1:20
It seems you are as ignorant of the Bible as you are of reality or science or the English language.
'Taint no such thing as Roman's 1:20 Dawn. Had you ever actually read the Bible you would know it was Romans (a plural of Roman) and not Roman's (a possessive of Roman).
This might seem nitpiking but it is actually the very heart of the matter; you seem totally unable to use words correctly. You use purpose when the example shows function, the word design when your example only shows order, you claim cause when you show only that something exists and science when your example only shows dogma.
Your only theory seems to be that some god or outside intelligent entity must be included.
Yet you never show any evidence of that god or outside intelligence.
Never do you provide the model, method, process, procedure or thingamabob to test for the existence of that god or outside intelligence. The best you have proposed is that it looks designed to you and so there must be a designer. You offer no reason there must be a god or outside intelligence designing what you say looks designed.
Worse, when you ask if "that looks designed" often the response your get is "No, it looks evolved."
AbE:
Sorry Mod, this was meant as a reply to Dawn, not you.
Mea Culpa
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 931 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2016 7:11 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 945 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-24-2016 12:32 AM jar has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 933 of 986 (784783)
05-23-2016 8:46 AM


quote:
Lord, Thou hast made this world below the shadow of a dream,
An', taught by time, I tak' it so--exceptin' always Steam.
From coupler-flange to spindle-guide I see Thy Hand, O God--
Predestination in the stride o' yon connectin'-rod.
Rudyard Kipling

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 934 of 986 (784784)
05-23-2016 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 930 by Dr Adequate
05-23-2016 1:28 AM


Re: Some Made-Up Numbers For Faith
They sure are made up. That's almost funny how you put yourself out to justify your own opinion. What I said to your last post still stands, you have no sense of how a population split would lead to a new subspecies -- over time, not immediately because the new gene frequencies have to be worked through the population down a number of generations to see the effect.
Picture ring species. You imagine mutations which aren't needed, just the playing out of the built-in genetic variability in new gene frequencies, to get all those amazing changes from population to population. Yes, I'm disagreeing with the standard explanation of all these things, so what else is new? I'm a creationist, I know the evo explanations are wrong.
And all you are doing is making up a phony scenario to justify your own belief system. I'm pondering ways I could answer you with the same sorts of notations but it's so very much more complicated than you've presented it I probably won't be able to do that.
1) Even if mutations did play a part, that wouldn't happen fast enough to make a difference in the population, and 2) it wouldn't happen in anything like the numbers you imagine, and 3) if they did play a part, as I keep saying, they are only going to be incorporated or cut down like any other allele, and in the end the whole shebang has to run out of genetic diversity even if a mutation is part of the finished subspecies.
It would be nice if I could get all that expressed in numbers. I'm sure I'll go on trying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2016 1:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 935 by jar, posted 05-23-2016 10:30 AM Faith has replied
 Message 939 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2016 11:07 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 943 by herebedragons, posted 05-23-2016 12:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 935 of 986 (784786)
05-23-2016 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 934 by Faith
05-23-2016 9:45 AM


Re: Some Made-Up Numbers For Faith
Faith writes:
Yes, I'm disagreeing with the standard explanation of all these things, so what else is new? I'm a creationist, I know the evo explanations are wrong.
How do you know the evo explanations are wrong?
AbE:
Faith writes:
if they did play a part, as I keep saying, they are only going to be incorporated or cut down like any other allele, and in the end the whole shebang has to run out of genetic diversity even if a mutation is part of the finished subspecies.
Since the whole shebang has not run out of genetic diversity in the over three BILLION years that life has been evolving on the Earth, why would you think it must stop?
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 9:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 936 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 10:49 AM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 936 of 986 (784787)
05-23-2016 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 935 by jar
05-23-2016 10:30 AM


Re: Some Made-Up Numbers For Faith
1) Cuz makin new species costs alleles, and
2) if you guys were honest about it you'd have to admit mutations couldn't do what the ToE requires them to do anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 935 by jar, posted 05-23-2016 10:30 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 937 by jar, posted 05-23-2016 10:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 938 by AZPaul3, posted 05-23-2016 11:00 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 940 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2016 11:10 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 942 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2016 12:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 937 of 986 (784788)
05-23-2016 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 936 by Faith
05-23-2016 10:49 AM


Re: Some Made-Up Numbers For Faith
Faith writes:
1) Cuz makin new species costs alleles, and
2) if you guys were honest about it you'd have to admit mutations couldn't do what the ToE requires them to do anyway.
Since the whole shebang has not run out of genetic diversity in the over three BILLION years that life has been evolving on the Earth, why would you think it must stop?
Now what is the mechanism, model, process, procedure or thingamabob in Creationism that explains what is seen in reality?
Faith, we are approaching 1000 posts in just this thread and so far no one has shown any evidence of any Science in Creationism and only admissions that Creationism has nothing to do with Science and is only driven by dogma of a peculiar interpretation of the Bible not recognized by any major Christian denomination.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 936 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 10:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 938 of 986 (784789)
05-23-2016 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 936 by Faith
05-23-2016 10:49 AM


Re: Some Made-Up Numbers For Faith
2) if you guys were honest about it you'd have to admit mutations couldn't do what the ToE requires them to do anyway.
If you were honest you would admit that all the evidence ever produced shows quite the opposite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 936 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 10:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 939 of 986 (784790)
05-23-2016 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 934 by Faith
05-23-2016 9:45 AM


Re: Some Made-Up Numbers For Faith
They sure are made up. That's almost funny how you put yourself out to justify your own opinion. What I said to your last post still stands, you have no sense of how a population split would lead to a new subspecies -- over time, not immediately because the new gene frequencies have to be worked through the population down a number of generations to see the effect.
Feel free to interpolate between the stages I showed you. Happy now?
And all you are doing is making up a phony scenario to justify your own belief system.
Yeah, it's a hypothetical example. I said. But it shows how given known processes --- mutation, drift, selection, and the founder effect --- you can get new varieties by these mechanisms rather than by whatever mechanism you're postulating in your head, and get them without a net loss of genetic diversity.
Unless you can point to any of the processes and say: "But that couldn't happen because ...", or point to any of the two stages and say "But you can't get from there to there because ...", then you need to concede that this is the sort of thing that could happen.
1) Even if mutations did play a part, that wouldn't happen fast enough to make a difference in the population, and 2) it wouldn't happen in anything like the numbers you imagine, and 3) if they did play a part, as I keep saying, they are only going to be incorporated or cut down like any other allele, and in the end the whole shebang has to run out of genetic diversity even if a mutation is part of the finished subspecies.
Show your working. If you're going to pretend to have a quantitative argument, you need to have some actual figures, maybe some actual math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 9:45 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 940 of 986 (784791)
05-23-2016 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 936 by Faith
05-23-2016 10:49 AM


Re: Some Made-Up Numbers For Faith
1) Cuz makin new species costs alleles ...
Making new species does not necessarily cost net alleles, as has been amply demonstrated.
2) if you guys were honest about it you'd have to admit mutations couldn't do what the ToE requires them to do anyway.
Geneticists think different. You remember geneticists? Those people who study genetics? And who disagree with you, a person whose knowledge of genetics is so nugatory that I have more than once seen you try and fail to define the word "mutation".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 936 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 10:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 941 of 986 (784792)
05-23-2016 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 926 by Faith
05-23-2016 12:44 AM


Re: Tracking a population split mathematically
Change in allele frequencies is the definition of evolution according to some.
That's a start on the definition. But evolution includes changes that do not lead to speciation as well as speciation, so it does not follow that changes in allele frequency alone based on the given scenario can lead to speciation through simple mixing and matching of a sub set of the existing genes. You are simply reciting your own claim and not something for which their is evidence or a mechanism. And since there is no given mechanism, no matter what data Dr. Adequate provides, you are never going to be able to make a point this way. You are setting Dr. Adequate on a journey that won't end anywhere.
Meanwhile you are ignoring the fact that speciation under your speciied conditions is not inevitable, and in fact is not what happens at least most of the time. Instead what can result after the split is a combination where the sub group has most of the diversity of the parent group, and gains additional diversity over time through mutations. Speciation can then be (at least potentially) based on new traits rather than segregation of the old traits and it is easier to see how such things can lead to genetic incompatibility in the previous group.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 926 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 12:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 942 of 986 (784794)
05-23-2016 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 936 by Faith
05-23-2016 10:49 AM


Re: Some Made-Up Numbers For Faith
1) Cuz makin new species costs alleles, and
2) if you guys were honest about it you'd have to admit mutations couldn't do what the ToE requires them to do anyway.
Well we've looked, you see. We've done the maths is the thing. And erm. You appear to be wrong.
quote:
The human mutation rate per nucleotide site per generation (μ) can be estimated from data on mutation rates at loci causing Mendelian genetic disease, by comparing putatively neutrally evolving nucleotide sequences between humans and chimpanzees and by comparing the genome sequences of relatives. Direct estimates from genome sequencing of relatives suggest that μ is about 1.1 10−8, which is about twofold lower than estimates based on the human—chimp divergence. This implies that an average of ∼70 new mutations arise in the human diploid genome per generation.
Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans, Peter D. Keightley
With say an average human population size of say 5 million that's 350,000,000 mutations per generation. That's 20 years. That's 1,800,000,000 in a century. There are 60,000 more centuries between us and chimps. Humans have 3 billion base pairs. Not sure the numbers are looking good for you Faith.
Consider the FOXP2 gene, it does not labour or spin...no sorry wrong kind of speech, wikipedia notes:
quote:
In humans, mutations of FOXP2 cause a severe speech and language disorder.
FOXP2 - Wikipedia
Chimpanzees have this gene too. It is only two base pairs different than the human version of the gene. Impossible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 936 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 10:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 943 of 986 (784796)
05-23-2016 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 934 by Faith
05-23-2016 9:45 AM


Re: Some Made-Up Numbers For Faith
you have no sense of how a population split would lead to a new subspecies -- over time, not immediately because the new gene frequencies have to be worked through the population down a number of generations to see the effect.
So teach us...
When we describe what's wrong with your hypothesis you complain that we are misrepresenting it. So teach us your wisdom...
This is what the description above sounds like to me:
Population 'P' is the parental population and population 'Q' is the population split where the '"new gene frequencies have [been worked] through" after a number of generations of inbreeding.
P = {90% a1, 10% a2, 60% b1, 40% b2, 40% c1, 60% c2, 10% d1, 90% d2}
Q= {10% a1, 90% a2, 40% b1, 60% b2, 60% c1, 40% c2, 90% d1, 10% d2}
Do these populations represent distinct subspecies?
I'm pondering ways I could answer you with the same sorts of notations but it's so very much more complicated than you've presented it I probably won't be able to do that.
This would go a long way to presenting a model for your hypothesis. If you could show with numbers and symbols how a population split "really" occurs it would be of great help.
And yes, of course it is more complicated than presented, but you wanted it SIMPLE, right. If it was presented in more detail (as I have done in the past) you would complain that it was opaque. So which is it?
Picture ring species. You imagine mutations which aren't needed, just the playing out of the built-in genetic variability in new gene frequencies, to get all those amazing changes from population to population. Yes, I'm disagreeing with the standard explanation of all these things, so what else is new?
Based on your model, what would you predict would be the differences in the genomes of the populations at the ends of the ring (where two infertile populations overlap)? How would you determine the original genotype and would a population with the original genotype still exist in the ring?
You can't answer "there is no way to know" because models need to make predictions.... that is what models are for. If your model can't make predictions, it is useless as a model. Feel free to modify the questions somewhat to something you feel you could predict.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 9:45 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 944 of 986 (784823)
05-24-2016 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 931 by Modulous
05-23-2016 7:11 AM


I've never claimed to have a scientific theory of consciousness.
And my point being, that since all the elements are there, the brain, the mechanism and the process, you should be able to see a chain of causality, using your very involved scientific method. I mean is something missing for you to NOT do this?
If you can't and you should be able to, what would you say is the source of this simple observable thing called consciousness?
If consciousness is easily detectable by simple observation and I don't need a very involved process to identify it's existence in reality, would this be considered science? I mean since it's not involved, necessarily
Since I don't know what you mean by 'The science in creationism' I can't comment.
Oh I think you do,ive,stated it 1000 times now. It's the science of investigation by observation of simple undeniable truths, that don't need involved processess. These help me establish my conclusion of a designer or creator
When you can demonstrate my processes needs to be involved to support my conclusion, then you will have,won the discussion
But none of your observations have supported that life is Intelligently Designed, the existence of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer, you have not provided any causal link from the Creator to the Created, so you've done nothing but look at something. I don't see why it's of any interest. All you have supported is design and some kind of thing that explains the design, this is nothing to do with what most people would call 'Creationism'.
Creationism can be detected in many ways. The only question before us is there science in my process. The answer is yes. Design is as easily detectable as awareness or consciousness. So if you don't have a scientific theory or causal link for consciousness, can you still know that it exists and are you doing science when you detect it's reality.
While, I'm not using an involved processess to detect design, but we can see that it exist, is there any thing really wrong with my conclusion, that follows from this processess, or do you not like it personally
But just to be clear, you HAVE NOT raised any God in support of your position - right?
The SUPPORT of my proposition is my process, presently.
Because something is written down, doesn't mean that is its only and primary support. If those words were never written in that passage, design and a designer would still be true, correct?
The passage only indicates what is detectable in natural processess
Again, what would be be your educated guess, at what the source would be of consciousness. Is there even the smallest link you can identify using the scientific method. If you can't what do you think is going on
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 931 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2016 7:11 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 946 by Coyote, posted 05-24-2016 12:50 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 947 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2016 5:23 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 949 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2016 10:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 950 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2016 10:12 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 945 of 986 (784825)
05-24-2016 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 932 by jar
05-23-2016 8:39 AM


Re: more evidence that Dawn is also ignorant of the Bible.
It seems you are as ignorant of the Bible as you are of reality or science or the English language.
'Taint no such thing as Roman's 1:20 Dawn. Had you ever actually read the Bible you would know it was Romans (a plural of Roman) and not Roman's (a possessive of Roman).
This might seem nitpiking but it is actually the very heart of the matter; you seem totally unable to use words correctly.
Everything you do is nitpiking.
Anyone that knows your pattern knows that you troll along behind a few of your cronies actual arguments, then come in behind them like, some sort of cheerleader, only to follow,it up with insults, jibes and rudness
Your are to argumentation what an allergy is to the eyes or nose, an irritant, with no real purpose other than to annoy
Dawe Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 932 by jar, posted 05-23-2016 8:39 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 948 by jar, posted 05-24-2016 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024